Talk:Galaxy class
FA status Nomination Self-nomination. Ottens 20:44, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. -- Dan Carlson 17:01, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Normally I look for references in articles, but in this case it might prove to be a bit superflous (pardon my spelling). But perhaps in the more obscure sections of info that only show up in one episode or so, it might be a good idea to have a reference. -- Redge 16:20, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) Featured Article?!?!? This article should NOT be featured. It is replete with copyvios of the grossest sort. The entire "Physical Arrangement," section as well as most of the "History" (notably "Construction History" and "Design and Development") are taken verbatim from the Technical Manual. Secondly, there are no tech specs beyond the very basics - how many torpedoes does this ship hold? What about probes? What were some of the technical innovations? Who were principle designers? Also, there are some factual flaws: The theory of modular bridges does not come from DS9! It comes from the fact that Enterprise bridges were extremely different from TMP to TWOK (between which no major refit takes place). Zenter 23:40, 28 Jan 2005 (CET) :Zenter, at least as far as the modular bridges goes, the old Enterprise has no bearing here. How do we know that the newer ships are modular like the old ones were? The ONLY evidence of modular bridges is from DS9, as noted. Famartin 05:13, 29 Jan 2005 (CEST) ::I listed this article on Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates. Please comment there if you agree/disagree. -- Cid Highwind 13:30, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) Edits on 01/30/04 These edits are partially in response to above... it was really hard editing out non-relevant info from an article about the Galaxy class... lots of stuff from the TNG Tech Manual has become so deep-rooted in the fandom, that it's pretty difficult to discern what is and what isn't appropriate to keep. If you feel any of this text was removed unjustly, please feel free to comment. :The hulls, remarkably birdlike in their strong, hollow construction, are reinforced against flight stresses by active energy fields that tighten and flex where required to compensate for natural and artificial internal and external forces. Structures integrated into the hulls allow for a variety of necessary functions. Even at high warp speeds, the ''Galaxy class starship has a very "natural" look to it.'' Partial copyright vio from TNG Tech Manual; even so, it seems to be a very partial description. :The forty-two decks are internally divided around major load-bearing structures. A great many systems, especially the pressurized habitation sections, are suspended within the open spaces, essentially "floating" on flexible ligaments to minimize mechanical, thermal, and conductive radiation shocks. As the , the third ''Galaxy class starship to be constructed, left the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, approximately 35% of the internal volume was not yet filled with room modules and remained as empty spaceframe for future expansion and mission-specific applications.'' Another partial copyright vio. Rewritten. :Only six initial vessels were constructed and launched out of a yard order of twelve; the remaining hulls were kept in storage until needed. :When the official start for the project was announced in 2343, much original theoretical work had already been accomplished, particulary in the propulsion field. While the attempt to surpass the primary warp field effiency barrier with the Transwarp Development Project in the early 2280s proved unsuccessful, the pioneering achievements in warp power generation and field coil design eventually led to the uprated [[Excelsior class|''Excelsior]] and starships. Both vessels served Starfleet in exemplary fashion. They continue to do so, even beyond their original design lifetimes. The Galaxy class is expected to remain true to its predecessors.'' :The construction of the USS ''Enterprise-D followed a path similar to that taken by the pathfinder vehicle, the [[USS Galaxy|USS Galaxy]], and the first production starship, [[USS Yamato|USS Yamato]]. As with any large space vessel project, improved materials and construction techniques were incorporated into the Galaxy class assembly process, allowing the minimum flyable starship to be delivered to Starfleet in two years less time than the previous class. On June 3, 2350, the first two spaceframe components, the Deck 10 computer core elliptical compression member and the starboard main longitudinal compression bulkhead, were gamma-welded during a brief ceremony at the Utopia Planitia assembly site 16,625 kilometers above the surface of Mars, in synchronous orbit. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual)'' :The initial procurement order issued by Starfleet Command was for six ''Galaxy class starships. A projected total of twelve vessels is held as an option to be activated by Starfleet and the Federation, should conditions warrant. Once the initial spaceframe design was finalized, it was decided to proceed with the completion of six vessels and to take the other six to the end of the framework stage only. These six spaceframes have been broken down into manageable segments and dispersed by cargo carriers to remote sites within the Federation as a security measure.'' TNG Tech Manual info, some sentences are borderline copyright vio. However, none of this was explicitly supported in canon. :Starfleet required more ships to match the Dominion war machine, and the ''Galaxy class was amongst those whose construction was accelerated, to fill the fleets with heavy combatants. These starships were completed without most of the fittings of their peacetime counterparts - some ships were sent into battle with only the facilities needed for defensive and offensive capabilities, and minimal crew support.'' I'm not completely familiar with DS9, so I don't know if it was ever mentioned that the shipyards were churning out more ships in response to the Dominion. The only time I remember this being an issue was the DS9 Tech Manual. :Under Main Bridge -- Some variants of the ''Galaxy class eschew this design for a common command 'bench'.'' Never seen on screen; seems based on concept art. :Under Medical Facilities -- The extended nature of many starship voyages as well as the hazardous nature of Starfleet duty can make this a considerable challenge. Additionally, the diverse range of lifeforms both in Starfleet as well as on various destination planets dramatically increases the scope of the task. :The medical department, under the direction of the chief medical officer, is principally located in two sickbay facilities on Deck 12. The primary facility, located on the port side of the ship, consists of two medical intensive-care wards, an attached laboratory, the chief medical officer's office, and a small nursery. The second facility, located on the starboard side of the deck, is similar to the primary sickbay, but features two dedicated surgery suites, a physical therapy facility, a nursery, and a null-grav therapy ward. Adjacent to the second facility is a dental care office and a full biohazard isolation unit. :These facilities provide the medical staff with an impressive complement of tools with which to handle an extraordinary range of medical problems for both known and presently unknown species. Capabilities include a full equipped medical laboratory with advanced bio-assay and lifeform analysis hardware. Also available are nanotherapy, genetic sequence, and virotherapeutic equipment. Medical lab capabilities can be bolstered by employing the lab services of one of more shipboard science departments. ''(Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual)'' TNG Tech Manual copyright vio. :Under Crew Quarters -- Starfleet recognizes that its single most important system and most valuable resource is its people. The crew of a starship determines, far more than any technology or hardware, the success of any given mission. Accordingly, Starfleet has a long tradition of placing its personnel at the top of its priority list. :The long, exacting, and frequently hazardous nature of starship duty places a very considerable toll on its crew. Yet the nature of Starfleet missions requires each crew member to be continually operating at very near 100%. The success of a mission, the safety of the ship, or the fate of an entire planet can at any moment hinge on the performance of any crew member. Reconciling the demanding nature of starship duty with the need to maintain quality over extended periods is a difficult goal, but Starfleet's personnel policies make it a reality. :Starfleet personnel are well trained and highly motivated, but maintaining that motivation is on ongoing challenge. Starfleet's command structure is designed to support this philosophy and its officers understand the importance of nurturing and encouraging the efforts of each crew member. :Educational facilities range from training simulators, classrooms, and professional advancement programs to informal gathering of crew members. Significant blocks of off-peak holodeck usage time are typically reserved for training exercises - such simulations can often be counted as field experience toward promotions. Many starships have ongoing lecture programs featuring visiting mission specialists who are often at the forefront of their fields of study. All these permit interested individuals to advance at their own pace within their chosen specialty, or to gain the knowledge and experience to branch into other areas. Another copyright vio lifted directly from the TNG Manual. :Recreational facilities aboard the ''Galaxy class starship range from four holographic environment simulators, two fully equipped gymnasiums and other exercise and sports facilities, a concert hall and theatre, an arboretum, a fencing room, a phaser range, and a variety of lounges for off-duty use.'' TNG copyright vio. :Smaller versions of the standard holodeck, holosuites are designed for individual usage. There are twenty holosuites on board, located on Decks 12 and 33. ''(Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual)'' Not supported on screen. I also removed or rewrote some other bits of data, particularly from the Interior section, which was from the TNG Manual and not explicitly shown on screen. Please feel free to revert whatever I may have removed and state your reasons for doing so here. The article still has a many blank or vague areas... I'm probably going to continue to tweak it over the next few days myself. -- SmokeDetector47 10:24, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) Removal - an extensive rewrite was started and is still in progress. This rewrite is, in my opinion, completely justified to remove TNGTM speculation. As such, the article probably shouldn't have been nominated in the first place - it's "Featured article"-status should definitely be reconsidered now. I suggest this article as a "FA removal candidate" and think it should be re-suggested as a FA once the rewrite is complete. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) :Support. The article has been drastically changed from its original form; the community definitely needs to reconsider whether or not it wants to keep it as a featured article at some point in the future. -- SmokeDetector47 22:06, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) :: I see that the "featured" was removed at one point, but was it has not mysteriously returned, was this a legitimate or frivolous add back? --Gvsualan 20:10, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT) Nomination * . I don't see why it shouldn't be featured again... Ottens 19:46, 3 Feb 2005 (CET) :Do articles that achieve featured status go into a rotation, and "float" to the home page periodically? Or must they be renominated to appear again? -- Balok 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (CET) Due to changes made to the Galaxy class article, its featured status was removed. Now, I'm renominating it... Ottens 22:00, 8 Feb 2005 (CET) :Supported -- Balok 22:55, 8 Feb 2005 (CET) Reconfirmation I haven't read this in awhile, but the last time I did it was still worthy of FA status, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and support its reconfirmation before reading the whole thing again. - 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. - 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. Still detailed and no problems that I see. 31dot 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. I also think it deserved FA status. Tom 08:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC) *'Neutral', - Support on merit of its in-universe aspect. I have some reservations though on the BGinfo aspect. While I'm aware that the format used in the in-universe section is explicitly allowed, I feel the sheer magnitude is impeding the flow of that section a bit, and that especially the larger bits might be better placed in the BG-section...Further the BG-section itself is in quantity (interior set-design is somewhat under-lighted) and quality (the Probert-quote for example is only partly cited) a bit under the weather. BG-info is fragmented over this article and the article. I personally would like to see all the detailed info on the "class"-page and a short recapitulation on the corresponding Enterprise-page much like what has been done on the and its Enterprise-page. However, since I'm aware that this might be construed as a matter of taste and that lack of info in itself is no ground for opposing, I'm therefore not opposed to reconfirmation.--Sennim 15:42, June 4, 2012 (UTC) Length of a Galaxy class starship I'd like to contest the listed length of 642.51 m. I have not seen a source anywhere that states this as the length of a Galaxy class starship. The Star Trek Encyclopedia says 641 m (so do Wikipedia and Memory Beta). :Indeed those lenght figures seem to come from DS9 TM. But I too don't remember anyone mentioning the exact size of the ship onscreen or on any computer graphic --Pseudohuman 12:58, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::None of the published lengths are canon, so the number should be removed from the infobox, but the 642.51m figure does come from the DS9 tech manual. The text in that book was written by Rick Sternbach, and he has made a number of statements in the newsgroups saying that the size is 2108 feet (which converts to 642.5184m). In addition, the 2108-foot figure can be seen on the early TNG size comparison chart which I linked to on the Ambassador page, on Ed Whitefire's unpublished blueprints which were made with access to the early TNG art department, and a variety of other early sources. Thus the evidence is much more in favor of the 2108-foot figure coming from Andrew Probert's orthos, although there is no definite confirmation either way - Andrew Probert wasn't sure offhand when I emailed him. – NotOfTheBody 13:19, January 30, 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Looks to me like a conversion error. Sad to know these still exist in the 23rd century... :::The ship originally had bike rack installed on the stern and a push bar up front. The bike rack was 3 ft long, and the push bar 2. They've since been taken off. In all seriousness, it's entirely possible that the might add or remove external equipment (sensors, lights, antenna, etc) that could change the figure slightly. Blue lights at main shuttle bay If you look out of the main shuttle bay onto the saucer's hull, just some 30 meters away, there are two... erm... "signs" with an estimated diameter of 10 meters, consisting of a number of smaller parts. Sometimes they are glowing pale blue, sometimes they are dull black. What are they? What function do they fulfill? Under which circumstances do they glow and don't? A buddy told me those are approach lights for the shuttles. This makes sense to me, but: In a movie picture the pattern are all black but two smaller parts of it, which are illuminated in white, as if they were windows (though this picture looked CGI to me). Kleinalrik 11:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC) :I've always thought they were some kind of gym or Arboretum, like the large blue lights on the side of the A were. – Fadm tyler 13:11, February 5, 2010 (UTC) ::They are indeed the arboretum, according to Rick Sternbach's blueprints. http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise-sheet-1.jpg --Pseudohuman 12:16, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Thank you both! And thank you Pseudohuman for the blueprints-link. Literally, it is just an opaque window of a blue illuminated hall? Are there movie-pictures of the arboretum? 22:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Arboretum interior was seen in . --Pseudohuman 12:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Thank you, dude! 18:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Scale in comparrison with Humanoid form in Human form on the aft section of a Galaxy Class starship. (For scale)]] I was watching and noticed a scene in which Q and Amanda Rogers transport to the outer-aft section of the Enterprise. I figured it would make a good addition to the Galaxy class article to demonstrate the size of the ship in comparrison with a Human but I can't really find a decent place to put it in the article. I've included the image here, I hope someone with more experience editing Memory Alpha (It's a bit more complex than some of the Wikis I'm used to) can find a way to incorporate it into the article (if it's deemed necessary). --Plaguebeard 11:03, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not really sure it would be appropriate, as there is no way of telling if Q and Amanda were retaining their normal humanoid sizes while standing on the hull (in other words, "they might be giants"). -Angry Future Romulan 14:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::They look to be scaled to human size, in that scene, considering that we know how big the ship is supposed to be. In any case i put it as the first image of the physical arrangement section. --00:30, July 3, 2010 (UTC) No Proof For Ground Construction There is no proof for this statement: "Major component construction of Galaxy-class ships was carried out both in orbit and at ground based facilities." The galaxy shown in that image may be for officer training, salvage, or other purposes. It was never stated as being in construction Heaney 19:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere that the Enterprise was constructed there. Anybody care to back me up with a specific reference? -Angry Future Romulan 19:42, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ]] ::Utopia Planitia's surface facilites were shown in , as shown in this photo. --31dot 00:50, October 28, 2010 (UTC) The enterprise was constructed in Orbit of mars was it not? - Heaney 15:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::This article is not about the Enterprise, it is about the Galaxy class in general, at least some of which was built on the surface of Mars. For all we know construction starts on the surface and moves into orbit. The statement is correct.--31dot 16:55, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Read my original post! I said. The galaxy shown in that image: (File:Utopia_Planitia.jpg) may be for officer training, salvage, or other purposes. It was never stated as being a ship in construction - Heaney 17:03, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::That is speculation, and aside from that unlikely. Utopia Planitia is where Starfleet has a shipyard. That is a picture of Utopia Planitia. Absent evidence(such as a specific statement) of your claim, we assume that what we see is correct.--31dot 17:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC) File:UtopiaPlanitiaFleetYards.jpg shows the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, in orbit. Not on the ground. It would be stupid to build a ship on the surface. - Heaney 17:38, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Whether it is "stupid" or not is irrelevant- it is apparently not stupid to them. We don't have to know the reason it makes sense to do so in order to have it in the article. The point it is it is speculation to say otherwise without evidence from canon.--31dot 17:51, October 31, 2010 (UTC) That's MY point!! It's speculation to say that it is a "Galaxy class ship under construction at Utopia Planitia" without evidence from canon! --Heaney 17:52, October 31, 2010 (UTC) ::No, it is not. We assume that what we see it what it appears to be unless told otherwise- which is a ship under construction. Just as a picture of Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton unless we are told otherwise.--31dot 17:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Utopia Planitia is a ship construction yard. This was a picture of Utopia Planitia. Ergo, a starship under construction. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:41, November 1, 2010 (UTC) Utopia Planitia is an ORBITAL ship construction yard. This was a picture of the ground. Ergo, possibly a starship under construction but NOT necessarily. Heaney 11:10, November 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::There is no proof that ships are only constructed in orbit, so we have no reason to assume that a ship in pieces isn't under construction, therefore the ship on the ground is under construction. - 16:37, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Utopia Planitia is never called an "orbital ship construction yard" or an "orbital" anything. We know it has orbital construction facilities because we have seen them, but nothing has ever been stated to indicate it is exclusively orbital. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::In the quantum reality where this image is from, Cardassians were spying on Federation sites involved with new starship development. Also an uncited note (next gen companion? tngtm? encyclopedia?) in our Unnamed Galaxy class starships states: "Although barely visible, Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda's original intentions was for this to be a Galaxy-class ship under construction. Later however, they realized it wouldn't be very logical to be built on the surface, as it would require more energy to take the parts into orbit than necessary. One response to this they suggested is that it was for officer training." Though it's propably pretty easy to counter Mars's gravity with a simple tractor beam... but still, i'm not sure it is that clear of an issue... --Pseudohuman 16:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC) ::That would be a valid background note, but since the original intention was for it to be what we see, a ship under construction- and nothing contradicts that in canon, the line in dispute is still fine.--31dot 16:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Galaxy Class Ablative Hull Armor I would like to contest the incorrect and repeated re-editing of the Galaxy Class page to not have Ablative hull armor, as it is clearly stated on page 23 of the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual in the form of the paragraph: "The outermost hull layer is composed of a 1.6 cm sheet of AGP ablative ceramic fabric chemically bonded onto a substrate of 0.15 cm tritanium foil. This material is formed into segments of approximately 3.7 m2 and is attached to the radiation attenuation layer by a series of duranium fasteners, which allows individual segments to be replaced as necessary." I'd say that's pretty conclusive, and the TM is a supported source of information. So Sulfur, stop incorrectly editing the Galaxy class' info page, as well as the ablative armor page. :The TM isn't canon. - 01:37, November 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Further aside, I am pretty certain in DS9 that Ablative armor was something rather new, and it was a total surprise to Starfleet Operations that it was on the hull of the . Mostly though, as Archduk3 has said, the Technical Manual is not canon (and in a further point, has been contradicted several times anyway) --Terran Officer 01:52, November 27, 2010 (UTC) First of all, it was fairly clear they knew what ablative armor was, and didn't actually show surprise; they showed annoyance. Furthermore, there has been no instance in canon which contradicts this statement by the TNG tech manual. :::Insofar as I understand it, the TM is stated to be a source that's accepted by MA, albeit with the caveat that it should only be used for background information. :::Further there is no canonical contradiction to the TNG TM on this point. The fact that there was surprise over the Defiant class specifically having ablative armor in no way proves, or even necessarily suggests, that it was a new form of armor that had never been used before, and in no way proves that the Galaxy class, or any other class, lacks this form of armor. Catamount1412 02:22, November 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::It should only be used for BG info. It doesn't mean that it is canon. The TM is non-canon. BG only. It may or may not have been obviously contradicted, that's a point of contention (obviously). Regardless, it does not belong in the main section of the article. ::::Finally, please sign your comments. -- sulfur 02:14, November 27, 2010 (UTC) :::It's entirely possible that there is something in canon explicitly contradicting the TM on this point, but if anyone wants to claim that there is, then the burden of proof is on them to show such an instance in order to show that the TM is wrong. The point about it belonging in BG info is, of course, correct. -- Catamount1412 02:23, November 27, 2010 (UTC) USS Trinculo In the Haynes Enterprise Owners' Workshop Manual (2010) there's a list of Galaxy-class ships which does include the USS Trinculo NCC-71867. I know that reference manuals are non-canon, but it would seem that the book was reviewed by the Okudas, so they possibly agree with this or even provided the information themselves. I don't think this affects the article but it's interesting to see that this ship is viewed as somewhat official, even though we have no proof of any on-screen appearance. --ANdRu 17:35, January 20, 2011 (UTC) :The ship has it's own real-world view article, , so feel free to add this new mentioning of it there. --Pseudohuman 05:45, January 21, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh sorry, there is a Trinculo page indeed, somehow I missed it. Thanks! --ANdRu 11:03, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Saucer section torpedo launcher According to the bg-note "The aft-firing saucer launcher was never established in dialogue, but is visible on the filming model." Is it? Is there a picture of the filming model somewhere where you can see this torpedo port? A link to the pic would also be nice in the article. I for one have not been able to see the launcher in for example the separation sequences in . --Pseudohuman 05:01, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :I have wondered the same thing. I have just watched Generations and I saw no evidence of this. What was he talking about? (Psydev 15:46, July 6, 2011 (UTC)) Looks like it was intended to be on deck 14 at the spot where in the actual model there is only plain hull and the text "Enterprise NCC-1701-D", according to Sternbachs plans http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise-sheet-9.jpg I corrected the bgnote to reflect this. --Pseudohuman 21:22, July 6, 2011 (UTC) ::See page 128 of the ST:TNG Technical Manual. An aft-facing torpedo launcher in the saucer section is shown in the diagram. :::The tech manuals are not canon; please review the canon policy. It can be mentioned in the Background section, if not already. 31dot (talk) 02:57, July 22, 2012 (UTC) Details on the launcher are mentioned in the bgnote in the tactical systems segment. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:21, July 22, 2012 (UTC) self cleaning It should be added somewhere that the ship will clean itself, who knows how this is done, or if it is specific to the galaxy class, riker mentioned the self cleaning in up the long ladder Galaxy class phasers how exactly did you people notice 14 phaser arrays on the galaxy? the ship has only 12. :Us people noticed 14 arrays on the [[:File:USS Venture and Excelsiors.jpg|USS Venture variant]] and 12 on the regular configuration. --Pseudohuman 17:02, March 4, 2012 (UTC) The point of my edits was that the Galaxy Class is heavily armed despite not being a battleship. Instead of taking that as it is, and since its so damn hard to FIND full DS9 episodes, you go 'no source, don't care what you say'. Stop it with the elitism.--NaruHina fan 20:32, March 16, 2012 (UTC) :If it's elitist to require you to back up your information, then guilty as charged. We ask that all information be supported. If you have information that you cannot cite until a later time, or wish someone else to check it for you, then you should post it on the talk page of the relevant article.--31dot 20:36, March 16, 2012 (UTC) No, its elitist to go in and ignore what was said. The main point I was trying to make is how heavily armed the Galaxy-class is despite not being a warship. I forget the exact episode where the Galaxy-class was mentioned to be a battleship in DS9, but its out there. Who could check it?--NaruHina fan 20:52, March 16, 2012 (UTC) ::If your "point" is that this class is heavily armed without it being called a battleship, then why are we looking for the use of the term "battleship" in an episode to support your use of the term "warship", which apparently is unfounded? As for it being hard to find full episodes of DS9, I'm not buying that, since we have a whole box of where you can watch episodes on the main page, and a simple Google search will find you transcripts and Trekcore is full of screencaps. If you don't even know what you're talking about, why does that have any place in a location where people expect the writers to back up what is written with citations? - 20:58, March 16, 2012 (UTC) :::Only episode I can remember that comes close is where the size of the Jem'Hadar battleship is compared to two Galaxy-class starships... We dont remove uncited notes because we dont care about the contributions, we just care a great deal more about our articles being as 100% accurate to canon as possible. so we don't allow any additions that are not backed up by a reference. It is not meant as an offense. --Pseudohuman 21:17, March 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::You can download all of the Star Trek scripts from here http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/. You can then unzip them and do text searches within them to see if a particular word was used in an episode, or to help find an episode more easily. Psydev 07:14, March 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::The Enterprise has been designated a battleship in the episodes and .Throwback (talk) 04:23, July 22, 2012 (UTC) ::One episode of which was an alternate timeline, and the other episode was where the crew had been mentally altered and the ship's computer, too. 31dot (talk) 11:15, July 22, 2012 (UTC) Speeds in sidebar The sidebar has gotten crowded with various significant speeds this class can reach; normal cruise speed, top cruise speed, and three different emergency top speeds with various consequences. As the sidebar isn't a substitute for reading the article and is meant to provide only the highlights, I'm thinking this should be kept to a bare minimum- I have three there now which seems reasonable, but if we cannot agree on what should be there, I would suggest that there simply be a link to the Propulsion section and we can list the speeds there. 31dot (talk) 16:51, September 26, 2012 (UTC)